Schumer criticizes administration's handling of BPA

Sen. Charles Schumer is pressing the Obama administration to explain why it delayed new regulations on bisphenol-A, the chemical found lining many food cans and now under scrutiny for its possible link to a wide range of health problems.

At issue is the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision in December to leave BPA out of new reporting and labeling requirements on a host of so-called “chemicals of concern” for posing health risks. The Dec. 30 “action plan” covered four chemicals, but action on BPA and another substance was postponed.

In a letter Tuesday to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Schumer insisted on a “written explanation” for the “confounding decision.”

“With more information surfacing all the time about the dangers of this chemical, our government should be stepping forward — not retreating — in order to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to BPA,” wrote Schumer, D-N.Y.

BPA has been manufactured for more than 100 years, but it became popular after the 1960s and 70s as an additive in plastics and in the lining of cans and other food containers. Concerns have been raised that BPA leaches into the food or water inside the containers — and ultimately ends up inside humans, possibly causing reproductive changes and other health problems.

The issue is a particular concern to both senators from New York. Schumer has sponsored legislation that would bar the use of BPA in any food and beverage containers marketed to infants or children under age 3 — such as sippy cups and baby bottles. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is a cosponsor.

I write out of serious concern about the Environmental Protection Agency’s disappointing decision this past December to delay the formation of a plan for regulating bisphenol-A (BPA). As the author of the Senate bill that seeks to ban the chemical from children’s products, I strongly believe our government should err on the side of caution and deploy the most safeguards possible against the potentially harmful effects of BPA. In light of the serious risks posed by exposure to this chemical, the EPA’s decision to postpone action on BPA does not seem to convey the proper sense of urgency.

As you know, a series of scientific studies have identified the potential risks of BPA, particularly to infants and children. The evidence about its risks was sufficient to cause the Food and Drug Administration to recently reverse its position on the safety of the chemical. After concluding in 2008 that BPA was safe for all uses, the FDA reached a different conclusion this past January when it raised BPA to its third-highest category of concern. While the FDA’s initial finding relied largely on research funded by the chemical industry, its new stance is in line with a 2008 report issued by the National Toxicology Program that found that BPA is potentially dangerous to human development and reproduction.

In light of this mounting body of evidence, I was perplexed by the EPA’s decision to leave BPA off a list of chemicals that will soon be subject to enhanced labeling and reporting requirements. As you are aware, on December 30, 2009, the EPA announced a regulatory “action plan” for four chemicals. BPA was one of two chemicals set aside for action later. I ask to be provided with a written explanation for this confounding decision.

As you are likely aware, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on February 15, 2010, that the agency does not plan to formulate any new plan for regulating BPA for two years. If this is true, it is alarming. At a time when we should be speeding up steps to limit Americans’ exposure to this potentially hazardous chemical, such a decision would apply the brakes.

I hope you share my belief that with more information surfacing all the time about the dangers of this chemical, our government should be stepping forward, not retreating, in order to protect the public from unnecessary exposure to BPA. I await your response and look forward to working with you on this issue.

Sincerely,

Senator Charles E. Schumer

The chemical has been used for decades to harden plastics and turns up in many food and beverage containers and the linings of food containers.